Being a student of Literature, I spend a lot of my time analysing how arguments are structured, how meaning is shaped through language, and how clarity is dependent on structure. Most of my week is made up of reading critical essays and research papers, breaking down essays into the basic elements, and providing concise, actionable feedback. That being said, this is how I normally approach a piece of work:

1. Structural Review

First, I examine argument, pacing, and organisation. Does the rhythm of the structure harmonise with the meaning and language? Is weak structure damaging the quality of your writing?

2. Line-Level Editing

Next, the focus is on copyediting. I look how to improve the clarity and readability, through evaluating language and its role within the writing.

3. Analytical revision

Here is where I concentrate on the quality of critical and rhetorical analysis. Does your evaluation support your point?

4. Proofreading

At this point, I’m checking for any typos, missed grammatical errors, spelling; through careful reviewing, I can catch the minor errors that may have gone unnoticed. Mistakes like these, though easily done, dramatically effect credibility and quality, reducing the impact of the piece.

5. Editorial comments

And finally, you receive detailed feedback and actionable suggestions for your review! A lot of feedback these days is abstract and vague, leaving the writer unsure and frustrated on how to improve. (I’ve been on the receiving end of poor feedback and it is almost worse then no feedback!)